Merck always was the epitome of what a pharmaceutical company should be. Growing up, I knew about what a good company it was. This reputation was largely based on the research organization that was built by Max Tishler. He led the teams that worked out the total synthesis of ascorbic acid, riboflavin, cortisone, miamin, pyridoxine, pantothenic acid, nicotinamide, methionine, threonine, and tryptophan. Tishler stepped outside his synthetic organic background and developed the fermentation processes for actinomycin, vitamin B12, streptomycin, and penicillin. Tishler also invented sulfaquinoxaline for the treatment for coccidiosis. This man basically invented the discipline of modern medicinal chemistry. He stands next to Paul Ehrlich in the discipline as one of those towering figures that looks down on the medicinal chemists of today. I wonder if he would be pleased.

Now Merck's new head of research, Roger Perlmutter, has announced plans to revamp research at Merck with a plan that will involve cuts to R&D. I have no access to the organizational structure of Merck, or it's costs or infact any inside information. However, I do know that when a research organization has problems, it almost never resides in the foot soldiers who carry out the day to day research. The choice of therapeutic areas, staffing, funding basically everything but the day to day research is a senior management problem.

Bringing in a new head of R&D is a start, but laying off the researchers will do nothing to make the pipeline more robust. The issues at Merck are deep. The shareholders should consider the way the military handles problems with performance in the field. They fire generals, not privates. If a division fails, the commander is gone. They don't cashier 10% of the privates to make a "leaner more efficient" division keeping the chain of command intact.

I firmly believe that no one has ever reorganized themselves to greatness. I believe that this is why most organizations fail over time. There is too much power in the upper echelons and the tendency to shift blame downward is too entrenched. Even the shareholder activist investors, when they wrest control from an ossified senior management, gut the company to see how they can get the largest sum, for the best parts of an organization and the devil take the hindmost. Tomorrow I will continue this thread with why I feel the merger and acquisition mania that has swept the pharmaceutical industry over the last two decades has caused this problem of weak pipelines and low levels of innovation.

Biology has taken over chemistry. Same thing has happened with Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals synthetic drugs research centre.

Reply

Brian Grabowski

6/23/2013 11:48:19 pm

Sorry to pile on but, look at the people running R&D institutions and you will see why they can not produce or lead! The corporate world is now run by marketing and bean counters with a myopic agenda...my 2 cents...

Reply

Peter Boxer

6/25/2013 04:59:27 am

My father worked at Merck, while Max Tishler led R&D. The Tishlers were friends of the family. He was not only a superb scientist, but also a warm and compassionate individual. I could cite numerous examples of his generosity and kindness towards our family, when my father was suffering from cancer (at the time he was head of cancer research at Merck). This just points out that to be a great leader of R&D requires unique individuals who combine both scientific acumen and interpersonal skills. Merck has done better than most, by any measure Roy Vagelos was also a great leader.
Having spent my career at Parke-Davis/Warner-Lambert only to be acquire by Pfizer and then a few years later Pfired, I would certainly agree that reorganization is not the key to success. It always solves some current problems, but always leads to fear and indecision and eventually creates a new set of issues. Peter Kim certainly fit the mold of previous leaders at Merck, but for whatever reason he was not successful. Hopefully, Perlmutter will be more successful.

Reply

Leave a Reply.

Adam Kallel Ph. D.

Our CSO sounds off about drug discovery, computational chemistry and history